4.7 Article

Ancestry and phannacogenetics of antileukernic drug toxicity

期刊

BLOOD
卷 109, 期 10, 页码 4151-4157

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2006-10-054528

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA078224, CA21765, CA78224, CA51001, P30 CA021765, R01 CA051001] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [U01 GM061374, U01 GM061393, U01 GM61374, U01 GM61393] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment-related toxicity in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can not only be life threatening but may also affect relapse risk. In 240 patients, we determined whether toxicities were related to 16 polymorphisms in genes linked to the pharmacodynamics of ALL chemotherapy, adjusting for age, race (self-reported or via ancestry-informative markers), sex, and disease risk group (lower- vs higher-risk therapy). Toxicities (gastrointestinal, infectious, hepatic, and neurologic) were assessed in each treatment phase. During the induction phase, when drugs subject to the steroid/cytochrome P4503A pathway predominated, genotypes in that pathway were important: vitamin D receptor (odds ratio [OR], 6.85 [95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.73-27.0]) and cytochrome P4503A5 (OR, 4.61 [95% Cl, 1.11-19.2]) polymorphisms were related to gastrointestinal toxicity and infection, respectively. During the consolidation phase, when antifolates predominated, the reduced folate carrier polymorphism predicted gastrointestinal toxicity (OR, 10.4 [95% Cl, 1.35-80.4]) as it also did during continuation (OR, 2.01 [95% Cl, 1.06-4.11]). In all 3 treatment phases, a glucuronosyltransferase polymorphism predicted hyperbillrubinemia (P = .017, P < .001, and P < .001) and methotrexate clearance (P = .028), which was also independently associated with hyperbillrubinemia (P = .026). The genotype-phenotype associations were similar whether analyses were adjusted by self-reported race or ancestry-informative genetic markers. Germ-fine polymorphisms are significant determinants of toxicity of antileukemic therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据